Scientific Method —

Finding the fear and love of God inside the brain

Scientists have long mused about the evolutionary significance of religion and …

Why do some embrace religion and others reject it outright? For a long time, scientists have been trying to answer this question by probing the neural roots of religion. Until fairly recently, many thought the answer lay in a "God-spot"—a small region of the brain that has been linked to the mystical experiences associated with faith.

Thanks in large part to the growing sophistication of brain-scanning techniques, which let neuroscientists peer into the brain’s inner workings, that concept has largely been rendered moot; there is now widespread agreement that religious behaviors are modulated by well-defined neural pathways. Indeed, several studies have indicated that the feelings of joy, doubt, and self-reflection that are evoked by intense religious experiences can be correlated with specific patterns of brain activation. Earlier this year, a group of researchers led by the National Institute on Aging’s Dimitrios Kapogiannis identified several of the cognitive mechanisms and brain circuits that seem to be engaged during the processing of religious belief.

Their findings showed that, far from being an inscrutable phenomenon, religion could in fact be experimentally addressed and that its emergence may have been driven by changes in the neural capacity for language, logical reasoning, and other evolutionarily significant processes. In a follow-up study, the same group investigated whether the expression of religious beliefs could be tied to variability in the brain's architecture. Their results, which reveal that differences in regional cortical volumes correlate with key aspects of religiosity, were reported in PLoS ONE.

In their first study, Kapogiannis and his colleagues developed a three-dimensional psychological framework that incorporated their subjects' differing perceptions of God in order to explore the neuroanatomical underpinnings of religion. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), they were able to associate these religious beliefs with activity in areas of the brain associated with memory retrieval, imagery, emotion, and abstract semantics. For instance, a subject who claimed to feel God’s love experienced higher levels of activity within the right middle frontal gyrus, a region associated with positive emotions.

For their new study, the authors had the same group of subjects complete a survey about their religious behaviors, their upbringing, and about particular aspects of their worldview. Whereas the intent of their first study was to illuminate the neural and cognitive activity associated with religious experiences, their objective here was to determine whether slight variations in gray matter volume correlated with different facets of their religiosity.

From the survey results they collected, they identified four components of religiosity: experiencing an intimate relationship with God and engagement in religious behavior; having a religious upbringing; doubting God’s existence; and experiencing fear of God’s anger. They then paired these findings with the results of structural MRI tests to see what relationships existed between brain volume and these components.

Confirming some of their earlier conclusions, the authors found that both religious belief and religious practice seem to be associated with networks in the brain involved with social cognitive processing. The robustness of the networks varied on an individual basis, reflecting each subject’s distinct religiosity, and seemed to fluctuate over time in response to changing stimuli. None of the networks they identified were found to be unique to religion.

The MRI results revealed that a stronger sense of intimacy with God correlated with an increase in the cortical volume of the right middle temporal gyrus (MTG). The MTG plays a key role in establishing and maintaining intimate relationships, such as the one between a mother and her child, so the authors reason that its evolution gave rise to the sense of intimacy with God that some devout individuals share.

At the other end, subjects with low MTG volumes displayed little interest in God or religion. (Schizophrenic patients, who often struggle to differentiate self from God and display aberrant religious behaviors, had the lowest volumes.)

They also found a pronounced negative correlation between the cortical volume of the left precuneus, an area involved in empathy and emotional response, and fear of God's anger. Those who felt a stronger connection with God, and thus were better able to relate God to their selves, had larger precuneus volumes and tended to be the most devout practitioners. Individuals with smaller volumes who did not form strong emotional bonds with God typically prayed out of a sense of fear, rather than out of a sense conviction or love.

Because the study only considered adults, the obvious next step would be to analyze younger age groups. Being correlational rather than causal, these findings don't really address the question of whether certain individuals were more predisposed to particular patterns of religiosity because of their brain development. The fact that no region of the brain corresponded with religiosity of upbringing rules out the contention that religious nurture alone contributes to neuroanatomical variability.

The sum total of their results suggests that religious belief may have arisen as a natural extension of evolutionary advances in social cognition and behavior. Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

The sum total of their results suggests that religious belief may have arisen as a natural extension of evolutionary advances in social cognition and behavior. Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

The sum total of their results suggests that religious belief may have arisen as a natural extension of evolutionary advances in social cognition and behavior. Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

SB territory here we come. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Heh, since this is a story about evolution I find it amusing the chicken and egg analogy came up. From an evolutionary perspective the egg came first and the same is true of religion.

Very interesting! We need more of these sorts of studies. As in, analyze people under fMRI while they perform customary rituals and such (to the extent that movement isn't a hindrance of course).

quote:

Confirming some of their earlier conclusions, the authors found that both religious belief and religious practice seem to be associated with networks in the brain involved with social cognitive processing.

In a way I hope that a lot of folks become disillusioned in a "so the force is just midichlorians?" sort of manner. It's common to say "religion is off-limits, science can't probe it", but I'm just not convinced that's true.

quote:

Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

To me, this is to be expected. Unfortunately a lot of people (Americans at least) still don't grasp the fact that homo sapiens have been around for something like 200,000 years, and that 99% of that time was spent without their weird little sect's beliefs. I know that will turn into flamebait, but I mean it as an honest reflection on peculiar behavior.

The MRI results revealed that a stronger sense of intimacy with God correlated with an increase in the cortical volume of the right middle temporal gyrus (MTG). [...] They also found a pronounced negative correlation between the cortical volume of the left precuneus, an area involved in empathy and emotional response, and fear of God's anger.

So... no mention of the pineal gland? Everyone should know that's the real link between physical reality and a profound state of metamystical confusion (props if you get the reference)

Originally posted by dawnstephens:What if you don't accept evolution as fact.

*sigh* Then you're not a scientist. And when such a person holds a Ph.D., they almost universally wave it around as an authority flag while throwing their responsibilities for personal and public education out the fenêtre.

Originally posted by dawnstephens:It is obvious that the study was used to prove a pre-existing belief that already existed. What if you don't accept evolution as fact. Then the entire study could be looked at differently.

Yeah, well, that's part of the nature of science. You build on what you "know," which is based on what is most commonly accepted by the scientific community.

The sum total of their results suggests that religious belief may have arisen as a natural extension of evolutionary advances in social cognition and behavior. Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

Yep, because we know that the rise of religion had NOTHING to do with our ignorance, fear, and frustration of the world around us, nor with crafty people who could use it to rise to power, nor with such people using said power to acquire earthly possessions. Nope, it had nothing to do with those things at all.

People who try to make such claims are grasping at straws and trying to justify their own worldview created by years of indoctrination. I should know, because I once did the same things. There is absolutely nothing in this world to suggest there is a benevolent, personal god watching over us. It is merely wishful thinking that, instead of being redressed for its absurdity, has become socially acceptable. As a result, religion exists.

Previous studies have already shown that the same areas of the brain are simulated when monks meditate and priests pray. What does this prove? It only shows that feelings resulting from such activities cannot be used to prove god X or Y exists or that religion A or B is the REAL religion. In other words, these "feelings" of being close to a god or being one with the universe don't count too much and definitely do not prove the existence of a god.

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:Very interesting! We need more of these sorts of studies. As in, analyze people under fMRI while they perform customary rituals and such (to the extent that movement isn't a hindrance of course).

I have been expounding for years the theory that religion and religious experiences have been part of the invention/evolution of language, art and social organization. The specific argument I have been making is that religion (by which I mean the impulse that gives rise to religious beliefs of all types) is intrinsic to human consciousness. Witness the rise of activities that provide the same physiological effects of religious experience in our increasingly secularized society: raves, music concerts and certain types of sporting events (as well as other "spiritual activities" which should correctly be classified as religious but are non-denominational).

I am not at all surprised that more evidence of physiological activity during religious experiences and thinking occurs. In fact, I am surprised that it has taken so long to prove it.

Disclosure: My MA thesis was an attempt to prove, in the words of my advisor, "Raves as religion".

That's a pretty good insight into religion and religious experience. To me that's one of the reasons why I don't think religion is stupid. If it is a natural evolution/invention of language/art/social organization then it can't really be stupid.

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:Very interesting! We need more of these sorts of studies. As in, analyze people under fMRI while they perform customary rituals and such (to the extent that movement isn't a hindrance of course).

I have been expounding for years the theory that religion and religious experiences have been part of the invention/evolution of language, art and social organization. The specific argument I have been making is that religion (by which I mean the impulse that gives rise to religious beliefs of all types) is intrinsic to human consciousness. Witness the rise of activities that provide the same physiological effects of religious experience in our increasingly secularized society: raves, music concerts and certain types of sporting events (as well as other "spiritual activities" which should correctly be classified as religious but are non-denominational).

I am not at all surprised that more evidence of physiological activity during religious experiences and thinking occurs. In fact, I am surprised that it has taken so long to prove it.

Disclosure: My MA thesis was an attempt to prove, in the words of my advisor, "Raves as religion".

Originally posted by divisionbyzero:Now, time for flame-bait: Fear the wrath of god == lack of social empathy. Sounds about right to me.

Heh... and:

quote:

At the other end, subjects with low MTG volumes displayed little interest in God or religion. (Schizophrenic patients, who often struggle to differentiate self from God and display aberrant religious behaviors, had the lowest volumes.)

So the non-religious are closer to being either insane or even have god complexes (they see themselves as god)... sounds about right

The sum total of their results suggests that religious belief may have arisen as a natural extension of evolutionary advances in social cognition and behavior. Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

Yep, because we know that the rise of religion had NOTHING to do with our ignorance, fear, and frustration of the world around us, nor with crafty people who could use it to rise to power, nor with such people using said power to acquire earthly possessions. Nope, it had nothing to do with those things at all.

People who try to make such claims are grasping at straws and trying to justify their own worldview created by years of indoctrination. I should know, because I once did the same things. There is absolutely nothing in this world to suggest there is a benevolent, personal god watching over us. It is merely wishful thinking that, instead of being redressed for its absurdity, has become socially acceptable. As a result, religion exists.

Previous studies have already shown that the same areas of the brain are simulated when monks meditate and priests pray. What does this prove? It only shows that feelings resulting from such activities cannot be used to prove god X or Y exists or that religion A or B is the REAL religion. In other words, these "feelings" of being close to a god or being one with the universe don't count too much and definitely do not prove the existence of a god.

To me religion might have risen because of "empathy for others" and "wishful thinking". In other words, "love" gave rise to religion.

I can easily imagine in ancient days when someone died. What happens? Because of love, a child cries over the death of a loved one. Because we have empathy for the child we try to comfort them. Because of wishful thinking we tell the child, "Don't cry. He/She just went to another place called heaven. You will see him/her again someday."

Originally posted by Mr. Stinky Pants:To me, empathy for others is a special quality ... It separates humans from being just an animal (although I think some animals have shown or have the capacity of having epathy for others).

A) We sure don't act like it a lot of times, if the evening news is any indication.B) What about other primates? IIRC there's good evidence for altruism (e.g. protecting another's child at risk to one's own life) and grieving for the loss of family membersC) Again IIRC, grave sites for H.neanderthalensis, an extinct hominid species, seem to show evidence for burial and adornment with flowers and tools.

Doesn't sound so special now.

quote:

the earlier 99% of the time that homo sapien's been around is a little less important than the later 1% of the time.

Well, maybe... if you had anything significant to say about hominid behavior in prehistory. Do you?

Originally posted by GoblinRevolution:I have been expounding for years the theory that religion and religious experiences have been part of the invention/evolution of language, art and social organization. The specific argument I have been making is that religion (by which I mean the impulse that gives rise to religious beliefs of all types) is intrinsic to human consciousness.

Aren't the terms "evolution" and "intrinsic" kind of... incompatible? If you're saying religion is an inevitable consequence of language etc., then don't you have to provide some sort of neurological argument that distinguishes other apes' language from ours? Where do you draw that line, in terms of history or brain structure?

Originally posted by Mr. Stinky Pants:To me, empathy for others is a special quality ... It separates humans from being just an animal (although I think some animals have shown or have the capacity of having epathy for others).

A) We sure don't act like it a lot of times, if the evening news is any indication.B) What about other primates? IIRC there's good evidence for altruism (e.g. protecting another's child at risk to one's own life) and grieving for the loss of family membersC) Again IIRC, grave sites for H.neanderthalensis, an extinct hominid species, seem to show evidence for burial and adornment with flowers and tools.

Doesn't sound so special now.

quote:

the earlier 99% of the time that homo sapien's been around is a little less important than the later 1% of the time.

Well, maybe... if you had anything significant to say about hominid behavior in prehistory. Do you?

A) I think studies have shown that a large majority of the people who commit horrific crimes tend to lack empathy for others.

B) I did say that I think other animals have shown or have the capacity for having empathy for others. I didn't say it was unique to humans. I don't think this invalidates my statement that this trait is special. To me, special and unique do not mean the same thing.

Originally posted by mathrockbrock:Very interesting! We need more of these sorts of studies. As in, analyze people under fMRI while they perform customary rituals and such (to the extent that movement isn't a hindrance of course).

I have been expounding for years the theory that religion and religious experiences have been part of the invention/evolution of language, art and social organization. The specific argument I have been making is that religion (by which I mean the impulse that gives rise to religious beliefs of all types) is intrinsic to human consciousness. Witness the rise of activities that provide the same physiological effects of religious experience in our increasingly secularized society: raves, music concerts and certain types of sporting events (as well as other "spiritual activities" which should correctly be classified as religious but are non-denominational).

I am not at all surprised that more evidence of physiological activity during religious experiences and thinking occurs. In fact, I am surprised that it has taken so long to prove it.

Disclosure: My MA thesis was an attempt to prove, in the words of my advisor, "Raves as religion".

That's a pretty good insight into religion and religious experience. To me that's one of the reasons why I don't think religion is stupid. If it is a natural evolution/invention of language/art/social organization then it can't really be stupid.

Wow, I must have time-travelled and post a reply to a message before that person wrote the message.

So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

Originally posted by Mr. Stinky Pants:To me, special and unique do not mean the same thing.

Most definitions of "special" connote (or even denote) "distinctiveness". How are you using the word?

quote:

I think studies have shown that a large majority of the people who commit horrific crimes tend to lack empathy for others.

That correlation may indicate that those predisposed to violence but not hampered by empathy find it easier to commit crimes. But it says nothing about the causation. Draw yourself a Venn diagram.

quote:

To me religion might have risen because of "empathy for others" and "wishful thinking". In other words, "love" gave rise to religion.

I'm not quite following. You're saying the difference between humans and other intelligent creatures is the degree to which we feel empathy and love? How do you quantify that?

And furthermore even if "religious feelings" activate "happy" pathways in the brain -- as this study indicates they may -- that doesn't mean religion is philosophically "good" in the same way as love and empathy. Couldn't that same result also mean we could treat religion like a drug, the proverbial "opiate of the masses"?

Originally posted by Akaharu:So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

I wouldn't call you brainwashed, but merely being dishonest with yourself. Can you honestly say that you believe in a god solely based on evidence? Or are there personal, emotional reasons?

If someone disproved your beliefs and the "evidence" behind them, what would you do? Would you honestly stop believing? This is the real litmus test. Most religious people believe because they want to believe, regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

Originally posted by GoblinRevolution:I have been expounding for years the theory that religion and religious experiences have been part of the invention/evolution of language, art and social organization. The specific argument I have been making is that religion (by which I mean the impulse that gives rise to religious beliefs of all types) is intrinsic to human consciousness.

Aren't the terms "evolution" and "intrinsic" kind of... incompatible? If you're saying religion is an inevitable consequence of language etc., then don't you have to provide some sort of neurological argument that distinguishes other apes' language from ours? Where do you draw that line, in terms of history or brain structure?

Good questions.

By intrinsic I mean an important and inherent part of evolution, just as the development of language and societal organization are. To (hopefully) clarify: language and societal organization (and religion) require certain structures in the brain to exist. As we evolved those structures, (which we wouldn't have unless there was a driving force to do so) we evolved language etc. What that particular driving force was, I can't say.

I am not exactly claiming that religion is a consequence of language, but of the evolution of consciousness; that religion (not belief) is a inherent in consciousness. We can't determine if other primates have religion, but we have determined that they do have some similar functions as humans like empathy and social organization. Are lower order primates conscious in the ways we are? Again, I can't say (I am not sure that anyone can).

As for distinguishing apes' language from ours, I would draw the line at self-reflection and symbolic representation. Are the languages of apes self-relexive and capable of abstractions (like metaphor) or merely a accepted and small lexicon of specific ideas (such as LEOPARD! and good fruit here)? I don't know, I don't work with primates.

The main thrust of my theory is that there are structures in the human brain that are used specifically in religious thinking and experiences (and we know that we can induce religious experience through a incredibly wide range of stimuli). These structures are also used in other specific activities such as empathy, language and symbolic processing. Does this mean that religion a meme that exploits these structures? I don't think so. I think that religion and language are as old as the human race (and in my view, older).

I feel it is important to again point out (not necessarily to you mathrock, because I am well acquainted with your intelligence so I know that you understand my usage) that I am not using the word religion to mean any specific faith (for this I use the word belief), but the base experience and phenomenon that gives rise to belief structures.

Originally posted by Akaharu:So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

I don't quite understand what you're asking, but I think it's something like this:

"Is it logically inconsistent to both understand evolutionary theory, thus accepting religion and religious beliefs as evolutionary products and still belief in X deity?".

If that's your question then the answer is no, it's not logically inconsistent. I personally view it as irrational, but humans don't always have complete control over our beliefs, even when we "know" those beliefs/feelings are "mistaken" or can be explained away.

Originally posted by Akaharu:So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

That wasn't part of the study, but you'll probably get some opinions here..

Originally posted by Akaharu:So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

I wouldn't call you brainwashed, but merely being dishonest with yourself. Can you honestly say that you believe in a god solely based on evidence? Or are there personal, emotional reasons?

If someone disproved your beliefs and the "evidence" behind them, what would you do? Would you honestly stop believing? This is the real litmus test. Most religious people believe because they want to believe, regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

I'm not sure how someone could prove that a being that exists in dimensions that we are not be able to observe does not exist--but if one could do it, I'd stop believing.

Originally posted by Akaharu:So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

I wouldn't call you brainwashed, but merely being dishonest with yourself. Can you honestly say that you believe in a god solely based on evidence? Or are there personal, emotional reasons?

If someone disproved your beliefs and the "evidence" behind them, what would you do? Would you honestly stop believing? This is the real litmus test. Most religious people believe because they want to believe, regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

I'm not sure how someone could prove that a being that exists in dimensions that we are not be able to observe does not exist--but if one could do it, I'd stop believing.

If you cannot prove that such a being exists in the first place, then it is intellectually dishonest to believe in it anyway. The only honest position in such a case is agnosticism.

Originally posted by GoblinRevolution:By intrinsic I mean an important and inherent part of evolution... language and societal organization (and religion) require certain structures in the brain to exist.

I don't think you can say that. What if future computers, or some far-away inorganic alien species (cliche sci-fi silicon beings) developed language and abstract thought, without the same neural structures as humans?

Evolution is restricted to its own history and available energy. If we could go somewhere with a totally distinct history (alien planet), who is to say that the development pathway of least resistance would resemble ours at all? Or what if we could shortcut that altogether (computers)?

Just because Earth's evolutionary path picked our form of grey matter to fit a particular time/space niche... doesn't mean it's the only conceivable scaffolding for consciousness, language, or civilization.

Originally posted by GoblinRevolution:By intrinsic I mean an important and inherent part of evolution... language and societal organization (and religion) require certain structures in the brain to exist.

I don't think you can say that. What if future computers, or some far-away inorganic alien species (cliche sci-fi silicon beings) developed language and abstract thought, without the same neural structures as humans?

Evolution is restricted to its own history and available energy. If we could go somewhere with a totally distinct history (alien planet), who is to say that the development pathway of least resistance would resemble ours at all? Or what if we could shortcut that altogether (computers)?

Just because Earth's evolutionary path picked our form of grey matter to fit a particular time/space niche... doesn't mean it's the only conceivable scaffolding for consciousness.

I think you are right here. Evolution does not guarantee the survival of the fittest, only the survival of the fit. Many different biological/evolutionary solutions exist for the same problem (i.e. concave vs convex eyes).

Originally posted by Akaharu:So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

I wouldn't call you brainwashed, but merely being dishonest with yourself. Can you honestly say that you believe in a god solely based on evidence? Or are there personal, emotional reasons?

If someone disproved your beliefs and the "evidence" behind them, what would you do? Would you honestly stop believing? This is the real litmus test. Most religious people believe because they want to believe, regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

I'm not sure how someone could prove that a being that exists in dimensions that we are not be able to observe does not exist--but if one could do it, I'd stop believing.

There's no difference between answering "no" and "it doesn't matter because you can't." Illogical logic puzzles don't lead anywhere.

Originally posted by GoblinRevolution:By intrinsic I mean an important and inherent part of evolution... language and societal organization (and religion) require certain structures in the brain to exist.

I don't think you can say that. What if future computers, or some far-away inorganic alien species (cliche sci-fi silicon beings) developed language and abstract thought, without the same neural structures as humans?

Evolution is restricted to its own history and available energy. If we could go somewhere with a totally distinct history (alien planet), who is to say that the development pathway of least resistance would resemble ours at all? Or what if we could shortcut that altogether (computers)?

Just because Earth's evolutionary path picked our form of grey matter to fit a particular time/space niche... doesn't mean it's the only conceivable scaffolding for consciousness, language, or civilization.

I won't argue that point. But since we have no computers that are self aware (I don't think we ever will, but that is beside the point) and since there are no aliens to dissect, I think we can safely say that for humans the above holds true; our neurological scaffold (I like that word in this context), is the only possible for consciousness, language and religion (civilization is something different, it is second order, based upon primary order of consciousness, language etc, humanity does not require civilization but we do require consciousness).

As an aside, in Simmons' Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion the conscious computers (which became self-aware through "evolution") did evolve religion. If you haven't read those two books, you really should.

Originally posted by Akaharu:So if you view evolution as probable, agree with the scientific community about the age of the universe, and operate with the belief that God does exist? Does this make one brainwashed even though one made the decision to accept not on someone else's words or experiences but one's own?

I wouldn't call you brainwashed, but merely being dishonest with yourself. Can you honestly say that you believe in a god solely based on evidence? Or are there personal, emotional reasons?

If someone disproved your beliefs and the "evidence" behind them, what would you do? Would you honestly stop believing? This is the real litmus test. Most religious people believe because they want to believe, regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

I'm not sure how someone could prove that a being that exists in dimensions that we are not be able to observe does not exist--but if one could do it, I'd stop believing.

There's no difference between answering "no" and "it doesn't matter because you can't." Illogical logic puzzles don't lead anywhere.

I never said it can't be done. If there is no god, it may be proven. Probably should have added "currently" to the "dimensions that we are not able to observe" bit.